User talk:WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer/TalkArchive/DEC2007
Colbert Nation Pages So, since i cannot remove insults from other peoples pages, and i cannot replace their pages with my own set of insults, then what is it that I am supposed to do? Yes for the MccAINiacs. thanks, Aristotler I have been editing both the Simian order page and the insults on the mujihadeen pages keep getting reverted. It looks like you are reverting them. Please explain why I am not allowed to remove insults, or to replace insults with insults of my own. Please explain who is doing the reverting. Thanks, Aristotler I am able to change it right now, but, it is futile because you or somebody else keeps deleting my edits. I want to remove insults of me from the muj page or replace them with my own set of insults, and you will not let me cause you froze the page. Who are you, do you have a name on the ColBoard? Why do you freeze insults of me on a page here? Your inability to answer my questions provides good clues about who you are. Since you deleted my edits on the Simian page earlier today, I fully expect you to delete them again. I expect that some other "secret agreement" will be the next reason that you delete my edits, or protect the weak muj, or whatever else. Am i wrong here? Who are you? Hello, Well, obviously you are trying. But, your inability to answer hardly any of my questions gives me pause. Just say you are uno, was not that hard. I will discuss with the Simians and we will decide if we want to participate in this endeavor. Participation may work, or may be a waste of time due to pre-determined extreme biases. Cheers, Aristotle Joe Wilson's War Ok, thanks. I'll get back into it and finish it off. Had a lot of craziness happen recently. But it shouldn't take too long to complete. --Careax 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC) :Oops, good catch on the Russert image ref. Fixed now. Cheers, Careax 08:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Another project? So I was thinking, what do you think about us having our own horoscopes? It doesn't have to be "horoscope"...it could be "Ameroscope" or something. I just thought it up so its sort of sketchy, but I was thinking it could take shape similar to the almanac, threat level, and Did you know. We could repeatedly demonise a certain month as a threat. It would take me a while to come up with the 4380 or so daily horoscopes but they could obviously all have the same voice as an article. I'm not sure if O'Reilly would embrace horoscopes or not. I think they might be seen as elitist, satanic, or part of the celebritocracy. But even wikipedia has its own conservapedia. Still thinking it through...but I just thought I'd leave a note to get your response.--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Edit: By the way, I realized the onion does something similar, but I was thinking more towards what the myface has. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) ::Ehhh, I've been there. Well, sorry to hear that. ::I was just throwing it out there. Its probably something that could be started in the future and slowly done. Hope ya get better. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC) couple things... picture I was wondering, how do I load pics? I want to put one up for Clive Barker (I'm debating whether it would be better to put up an actual pic of him or a Cenobite). Thanks. Clubhouses On things to do, you posted something about reducing the number of clubhouses. Do wanna just reduce them down to those with their own stub categories? (and then add more later as need be) or what did you have in mind? :I think the clubhouses should be consolidated so that clubs with similar interests are together. I believe thisniss was working on putting all the "art" type clubs into one. So, something like that is a good idea.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Dictionary Theres a lot of different types of pages included in the dictionary. Some are long, some are short stub'lings. I think at first you wanted them to replace pages marked as stubs that didn't have much potential to grow. But for an article like Blue Dog which is sort of no longer a small dictionary entry, what do you think about a smaller page suffixed with (word) giving the nutshell truthy definition and with the full page being a normal article? I'm not in love with the idea myself but it does seem weird to have a fairly nice sized article part of the dictionary. Just throwing it out there... :I don't know if dictionary pages were supposed to be short. They were just supposed to be a way to define things, without regard to length. Such a disparity in page lengths does seem odd, but I would never insist that once a page reach a certain size another page must be created. But, of course, we can just add that to the "things to do" lise, LOL!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Weigh In Though I think you already thought of this, I'll post it anyway. What do you think about having your personalties table as a template so its only one line. (sort of like the sandbox header). --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC) :The only reason to make anything a template is if there is a lot of code and it will be used many times. Or if you want to use the "choose" function. I am not sure if all the personalities will be used more than a few times, or if randomizing the characters is a good thing. I don't see a personality list being posted more than once, unless...just thinking out loud here...you want to prevent people from messing with the list? Then a template would be a good thing. It also gives people the impression that they cannot just add another.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC) ::Well, sort of vandalizing but mostly to make it less crowded. If someone posts a new comment but accidentally jacks up the table, ya really can't just revert the revision. Though, I see what you mean in that its really only used once and it really isn't as big code wise as I had thought. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC) :::I do like the prevent vandalism idea, and to unclutter. Both are very good reasons for making a template.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) ::Do you have any need for the gallery on the talk page? I posted it on Template talk:Weighin. And do you think the personalities template should be made?--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC) :::I actually created a smaller version, which I believe is on Talk:Weigh In, if I'm not mistaken...okay, it's there...it can be changed so that the similar ideologies can be grouped together, or kept the way it is without the row that shows the titles, check it out and do with it what you will...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think i've seen that before. So do you just want it grouped even if the numbering isn't in order?--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC) :::Not sure, we can try it grouped by ideology and see how it works, we can always revert.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC) ::k, placed in categories now... looks a little uneven and bulky but it could be formatting to be made smaller. Its up to you. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC) :::I moved Stephen closer to the front of the line of American leaders and removed the other sections and tables that were just redundant...I think this may be ready to go!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC) ::theres 42 isn't there? Is this going to be a daily thing? (like the daily poll) or a few ones set up for a period of time(like write a caption)--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC) :::42! Okay, I think daily is way too intense, more like Write A Caption is better. You never know how long an issue will stay "hot".--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC) WI templates I redid the weigh in templates so that is purely just source code and the other templates simply give the specific image, name, and location of the person. I thought this would make formatting a little easier now that only one edit is needed to widen/rearrange the tables. I don't think this will cause any problems but if so, it can obviously be reverted. I also thought it would be nice since anyone could potentially make a new persona without needing to make a new template right away. Edit: Also, the s at the top in template:weighin are so that they all align below one another uniformly rather than sporadically all over the place. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC) :Looks good, now I guess we should come up with some topics to have for slow news days and launch this sucker!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC) ::few questions... ::*Are we going to stick with titles or names? I liked the titles but I didn't know what your intention was. ::*What sort of topics are we talkin about here? Two cents seems to go with the typical assortment of trivial questions of life wisdom mixed in with minor commentary-esque topics for the average joe. I think unrelated non-iraq issues are an untapped source of humor that could possibly give this page a different angle. ::*Were you planning on placing the issue of the story in the form of a question or a general "brief summery of issue... whats your opinion?" ::--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) :::Titles v Names We can try first name, last initial to give it that informal feel. But maybe we can put both? Like: Rush L., radio personality? :::Topics I was thinking about anything goes. Iraq-related, non-Iraq-related, anything goes. Sort of like a SomethingAwful.com forum (heh)... :::Form of Issue Same as topics, whatever we need to make it work. Some issues can be posted as flamebait, similar to push-polls ("If you knew John McCain had a black baby, would this effect your opinion of him?") Others can be fill-in-the-blank stuff, like: "My favorite part of Christmas is..."--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) I removed the locations from the main template for now because it seemed a little too trivial/hassle. With a few exceptions, I went with some pretty politically neutral titles...mostly because I'm not feeling that creative today annndd I thought it'd be better if it sounded as if they typed it themselves. Obviously they can be changed to zingers later but its a place holder for now.--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) :Looks good, I've been thinking of stuff we can "discuss" and how much fun it will be once we get going! Thank you, nice work. (P.S. I changed a response to an earlier conversation we had regarding "satire", I just don't want you to miss it)--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Need yer advice Can you take a look at something on my "stuff" page that resembles the beginnings of a help article. If it works out well, I'm considering calling it something like "Wikiality: Writing Techniques." So if you could just take a look at it and see what you think (the good/the bad) and if you think anything should be added on, shortened up, etc. I think its a long ways away from being anything worthy of being called a policy. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :Well, "policy" is more or less something the admins came up with, LOL! :It looks good, infact, it reads as if you did some research (cough, cough) shame on you, j/k. I am fine with it, I say people should have more information, they can pick and choose what they will use. At least they can't say they weren't given the opportunity to read the stuff. In fact, uncyc will ban people because they don't read the helpful hints pages, LOL. They have a tag that makes fun of the person and tells them they are banned until they do read it!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :On second thought, it is easier to read and gives people more options than what was used before, I say replace all the old crap with it.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC) :::Late reply: So you want the useful content from improving pages moved to that page? or... :::I was thinking improving pages was becoming a little crowded with formatting stuff and I thought about merging the relevant formatting/editing content onto Help:Editing or a similar page. What all did you mean by the old stuff?--GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC) :I like your new stuff about satire, it should replace all the old crap about satire. Maybe the help pages should be somehow separated into three distinct pages (categories?) :1. SPG :2. formatting :3. content hints--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) ::Sounds helpful. So do you want the new writing stuff on "Improving pages" or should it be its own page? ::I had an idea a while back to just make whatever common mistakes left unanswered into sort of like quick talk templates (w/ suggestions) that could be posted on the article's talk page. It seems like the majority of the stuff would be covered in those three sections so its probably not necessary in the end. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, I'm still gonna work on it a little bit to make it a little more original and not as researchy. I just figured the suggestions page could only provide a limited amount of help in FAQ form. --GlennBecksAT**l (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) ::Improving Pages might be more like a "portal page" in the sense that it can contain links to specific questions, as opposed to one big long page, which can seem overwhelming.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)